Review Model: Double-Blind | Reviewers per Manuscript: Minimum 2 | Decision Types: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Resubmit, Reject
Peer Review Policy
The GIAR INTERNATIONAL Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (GIAR-IJIR) follows a double-blind peer review process to ensure fairness, confidentiality, objectivity, and academic rigor in the evaluation of submitted manuscripts. Under this review model, reviewer identities are concealed from authors, and author identities are concealed from reviewers. Manuscripts that successfully pass initial editorial screening are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers for scholarly evaluation. Possible editorial decisions include accept, minor revisions, major revisions, resubmit, or reject.
Purpose of Peer Review
The peer review process is intended to maintain the academic quality of the journal by ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated on the basis of originality, relevance, scholarly contribution, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, and clarity of presentation. GIAR-IJIR uses peer review as an essential part of its editorial decision-making process and as a mechanism for supporting high-quality interdisciplinary scholarship. The journal’s launch manual also positions peer review as a core trust signal that must be visible on the website before publication.
Review Process
All submissions to GIAR-IJIR generally proceed through the following stages:
1. Initial Editorial Screening
Each submitted manuscript is first reviewed by the editorial office to determine whether it:
- falls within the aims and scope of the journal
- meets the journal’s formatting and submission requirements
- shows basic scholarly and language quality
- is suitable for anonymous peer review
- does not raise immediate ethical or originality concerns
Manuscripts that do not meet these baseline requirements may be returned to the author for correction or declined before peer review. The internal workflow states that editorial screening checks scope, formatting, originality, ethical clarity, and baseline quality before a reviewer file is prepared.
2. Double-Blind External Review
Manuscripts passing editorial screening are ordinarily sent to at least two reviewers with relevant academic expertise. Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript objectively, maintain confidentiality, and disclose any conflict of interest before accepting the review assignment. The reviewer acceptance form in the journal pack includes conflict-of-interest declaration, availability, and consent to confidentiality terms.
3. Editorial Assessment of Reviewer Reports
After reviewer reports are received, the editorial team evaluates the comments and recommendations before issuing a formal editorial decision. The decision is based on reviewer feedback, editorial judgment, journal scope, and the overall academic suitability of the manuscript. GIAR-IJIR’s internal templates support decision outcomes such as desk reject, revision, acceptance, and rejection after review.
Review Criteria
Reviewers are generally asked to evaluate manuscripts on the basis of the following criteria:
- originality and novelty
- relevance to the aims and scope of the journal
- significance and contribution to knowledge
- quality of the title and abstract
- use of relevant literature
- methodological soundness or conceptual rigor
- quality of analysis and discussion
- structure and coherence of the argument
- clarity of language and presentation
- ethical suitability
- adequacy and currency of references
Your internal reviewer form and scoring matrix expand these criteria into a 1–5 review structure, including originality, scope fit, title/abstract quality, literature engagement, methodology, analysis, structure, language, ethics, and references.
Possible Editorial Decisions
Following peer review, one of the following decisions may be communicated to the author:
- Accept
- Accept with Minor Revisions
- Major Revisions Required
- Resubmit for Further Consideration
- Reject
The manual’s reviewer recommendation choices also include “Reject but encourage resubmission as a new submission,” which can be used internally where appropriate.
Revision Stage
Where revisions are requested, authors are expected to revise the manuscript in accordance with reviewer and editorial comments and resubmit within the time frame specified by the journal. Depending on the extent of revision required, the revised manuscript may be reassessed by the original reviewers or by the editorial team before a final decision is made. The editorial templates specify that authors may be asked for a clean revised version, a marked version if requested, and a response-to-reviewers document.
Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts, reviewer comments, and editorial communications are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, reproduce, or use unpublished materials for personal, institutional, or professional advantage. The journal’s policy copy and internal review workflow both emphasize confidential handling of manuscripts and reviewer reports.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should decline a review invitation if any personal, professional, financial, or academic conflict of interest may affect their impartiality. Editors also take reviewer suitability and conflict considerations into account when assigning manuscripts for review. The reviewer database and reviewer invitation setup in the manual explicitly track conflict risk and reviewer declarations.
Preparation for Double-Blind Review
Authors are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts are prepared for anonymous peer review before submission. This means that the anonymized manuscript should not include author names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgements revealing identity, or obvious self-identifying details. The GIAR-IJIR review workflow specifically warns against sending title pages to reviewers or leaving author details in file properties or acknowledgements.
Final Note
Peer review is an essential part of the editorial process at GIAR-IJIR, but reviewer recommendations are advisory. Final publication decisions remain the responsibility of the editorial team, which considers reviewer comments together with journal scope, policy compliance, and overall editorial judgment.